|
A big flaming stink posted:Are we taking about Through the Breach or Underworld Breach Underworld breach. combo works by using brain freeze to mill yourself, which fuels you escaping led or lotus petal a bunch of times. You can then brain freeze yourself again if you need more loops, or finally brain freeze your opponent depending on if you're winning using thassa's oracle or milling your opponent out
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 12:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:19 |
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Are we taking about Through the Breach or Underworld Breach Trap is not a card for either. This is job for force. Or daze. Or something that doesn't cost 4
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 13:27
|
|
|
Mindbreak is free
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 15:20
|
|
|
Hoot is right here - trying to catch other pieces on the stack against good storm players is probably going to result in a card that rots in your hand. You are either playing it to knock out the actual storm effect or not at all. It actually costs mana but this is usually where you see flusterstorm doing better work because you only have to worry about a late veil rather a “force your force” response from OP There are of course lots of edge cases I’m not going to blast off while on my phone but generally, this is how I approach putting it in the side/bringing it in
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 16:33
|
|
|
if it stops the loop that wins the opponent the game, and likely cast for free, then why is it bad?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 16:34
|
|
|
Party Miser posted:if it stops the loop that wins the opponent the game, and likely cast for free, then why is it bad? Nobody is saying it’s bad - just that is has a narrow application and that people will often bring it in against bad matchups for it, or fire it off at the wrong time trying to catch the non-storm payoff
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 16:35
|
|
|
if it's what you got, it's what you got.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 17:06
|
|
|
Party Miser posted:if it's what you got, it's what you got. Then it's not really the plan is it? Party Miser posted:if it stops the loop that wins the opponent the game, and likely cast for free, then why is it bad? The time to stop a breech loop is early, about when they cast breech. Before the third spell. Before trap is free.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 17:12
|
|
|
Party Miser posted:if it's what you got, it's what you got. Right but the point being made is you have agency in “what you got” through sideboard and deck construction
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 17:16
|
|
|
Party Miser posted:if it's what you got, it's what you got. you're evaluating in terms of a specific gameplay scenario but the others are talking about the deckbuilding phase. you can construct any number of scenarios where a specific play would be correct, however, you should not deckbuild or sideboard for the best case scenario. any number of cards (e.g. flusterstorm, thoughtseize, surgical extraction, force of will) can solve the problem before it even becomes a problem, while having other applications in non-storm matchups, depending on what your deck needs. or maybe you're a burn deck that doesn't need to side against storm. the point is, the argument you're making is predicated on a view of gameplay philosophy that is way too narrow to be applicable or useful for deckbuilding conversations.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 17:22
|
|
|
I'm not really a big fan of mindbreak anymore. Most black combo can check your hand, blue combo can counter it. It's good when they're not expecting it but playing around it is feasible for a lot of decks that aren't something like ruby storm. It's free and sometimes the best you can do, but the best you can do isn't necessarily the best
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 17:26
|
|
|
kalel posted:you're evaluating in terms of a specific gameplay scenario but the others are talking about the deckbuilding phase. you can construct any number of scenarios where a specific play would be correct, however, you should not deckbuild or sideboard for the best case scenario. any number of cards (e.g. flusterstorm, thoughtseize, surgical extraction, force of will) can solve the problem before it even becomes a problem, while having other applications in non-storm matchups, depending on what your deck needs. or maybe you're a burn deck that doesn't need to side against storm. the point is, the argument you're making is predicated on a view of gameplay philosophy that is way too narrow to be applicable or useful for deckbuilding conversations. This ilmucche posted:I'm not really a big fan of mindbreak anymore. Most black combo can check your hand, blue combo can counter it. Also this. Post board games are going to usually involve a flurry of resource exchange that tries to lower the answer quality each player has before the combo side of the matchup is eventually forced to go off bc a threat is pressuring them. In this type of scenario, proactive answers are better than reactive (rough generalization) and reactive answers should be skewed towards broader and on the assertive end of the reactive scale. Veil, force, etc. sitting and waiting for a combo player to present you an opportunity to disrupt is usually a recipe to get thoughtseized and smoked in one go on turn 4. If you are running islands this is usually why mystic sanctuary+fetch is the best anti storm card that exists. You are always a cantrip away from veiling their payoff or whatever and eventually that inevitability trumps unless they are good and thread a tight needle
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 17:36
|
|
|
I think some people are talking about Modern, others legacy and others EDH here.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 22:05
|
|
|
well that's ridiculous, only one of those formats is worth talking about.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 22:17
|
|
|
And I think we all know which one it is, too.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 22:38
|
|
|
I just assumed you were on vintage because Breach isn't legal in legacy, LED isn't in modern, and people don't run counter magic in edh.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 22:46
|
|
|
I don't think I've ever seen mindbreak trap in modern? It's legal in the format though, just don't think storm has been strong enough in quite a while to warrant it?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 22:51
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:I just assumed you were on vintage because Breach isn't legal in legacy, LED isn't in modern, and people don't run counter magic in edh. Maybe bad edh players. 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 23:51
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:people don't run counter magic in edh. 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 00:02
|
|
|
If you're at the kind of EDH table where people are going for Breach wins, you're at the kind of EDH table where people are going to be playing countermagic.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 00:11
|
|
|
Oh good point, exiling a spell technically isn't countering it
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 00:22
|
|
|
countering my spell? that's kind of a dick move, bro.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 00:30
|
|
|
What part of the rules say I don't get another Storm trigger with like basically any extant copy effect if I copy the original spell? Not Storm count, but putting another instance of the Storm ability on the stack. How could I do that besides a "copy trigger"?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 00:35
|
|
|
Papa Was A Video Toaster posted:What part of the rules say I don't get another Storm trigger with like basically any extant copy effect if I copy the original spell? Copying a spell isn't casting it, storm triggers on cast. If it triggered on copy it would go infinite with itself.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 00:39
|
|
|
Papa Was A Video Toaster posted:What part of the rules say I don't get another Storm trigger with like basically any extant copy effect if I copy the original spell? Not Storm count, but putting another instance of the Storm ability on the stack. How could I do that besides a "copy trigger"? Storm is a cast trigger, and you aren't casting it, you're copying it. More information here
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 00:41
|
|
|
Papa Was A Video Toaster posted:What part of the rules say I don't get another Storm trigger with like basically any extant copy effect if I copy the original spell? Not Storm count, but putting another instance of the Storm ability on the stack. How could I do that besides a "copy trigger"? The part that says Storm only triggers when you actually cast the spell and not when you copy it. It's the only way it can work, otherwise it would trigger Storm again when the Storm trigger itself did the copying, and any Storm spell would draw the game if it wasn't the first spell cast in a turn.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 00:41
|
|
|
Papa Was A Video Toaster posted:What part of the rules say I don't get another Storm trigger with like basically any extant copy effect if I copy the original spell? Not Storm count, but putting another instance of the Storm ability on the stack. How could I do that besides a "copy trigger"? 702.40a Storm is a triggered ability that functions on the stack. “Storm” means “When you cast this spell, copy it for each other spell that was cast before it this turn. If the spell has any targets, you may choose new targets for any of the copies.” It triggers off of casting the spell. If you made a copy of the card and then cast it, rather than putting a copy of the spell on the stack, that would trigger storm. Something like: "Copy target instant or sorcery card on the stack. You may cast the copy without paying its mana cost." There's probably a cleaner way to say it without referencing the stack, but that's the gist.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 00:45
|
|
|
Papa Was A Video Toaster posted:What part of the rules say I don't get another Storm trigger with like basically any extant copy effect if I copy the original spell? Not Storm count, but putting another instance of the Storm ability on the stack. How could I do that besides a "copy trigger"? what everyone else said
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 00:53
|
|
|
Do note that mos teffects that make copies simply create them on the stack as pointed out itt but others do have you cast the copy. Though I might be misremembering.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 01:34
|
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:Do note that mos teffects that make copies simply create them on the stack as pointed out itt but others do have you cast the copy. Though I might be misremembering. They tend to be things that exile a card and then cast a copy, such as Mizzix's Mastery
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 01:42
|
|
|
if you copy the storm trigger, would you get a whole nother set of spells equal to storm count or would you get only 1 additional spell?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 03:44
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:if you copy the storm trigger, would you get a whole nother set of spells equal to storm count or would you get only 1 additional spell? You'd get storm count number of spells.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 04:15
|
|
|
kalel posted:countering my spell? that's kind of a dick move, bro. lmao, same energy 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 05:43
|
|
|
lmao, "don't interact with me bro. I'LL interact with YOU"
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 06:33
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:if you copy the storm trigger, would you get a whole nother set of spells equal to storm count or would you get only 1 additional spell? If you, eg, cast 3 spells then a tendrils, then Vantress Visions on the storm trigger, you'd only get 3 additional copies, for a total of 7 tendrils. Because storm counts the number of spells cast before tendrils, which isn't the same as the current storm count. Dr. Stab fucked around with this message at 09:46 on May 6, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 09:37
|
|
|
https://x.com/AndyAWKWARD/status/1787261662128411075 https://x.com/WUCtrl/status/1787277658247577967 I remember bringing this up in the thread once and mentioning how common it was in competitive play. It seems it still is. The person who decided to act against the agreement missed on the 12 slot invite cut by coming in 13th place, so there is some justice. Apparently the person had a shot to still make top 8 with a draw if the match next to them also drew (they were at time) but that match was decided in turns. Still better to just win. The valakut being foil makes it garbo.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 15:13
|
|
|
I was at that event briefly. They were warning players that those deals would not be allowed.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 15:32
|
|
|
Sounds like he made a gentleman's agreement with someone who is, in fact, not a gentleman, but a scoundrel.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 16:20
|
|
|
For the past few months my friends and I have been drafting MTG twice a month. We all played regularly back in the Tempest block in the late 90's and then stopped until now. So far we have done 2 drafts each of Throne of Eldraine, Ikoria, Neon Dynasty, Modern Horizons 2, and Dominara United. I'm starting to curate a list of sets to go through for us in timeline order. I'm only interested in playing sets that were considered great to draft and skip over the poor-average sets. This is the list I cultivated with a bit of research: Khans of Tarkir --> Kaladesh --> Amonkhet --> Rivals of Ixalan --> War of the Spark --> Modern Horizons 1 --> Kaldheim --> Strixhaven --> The Brother's War --> March of the Machine Does that look generally ok? Any glaring misses that should be on there or sets that should be taken off?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:19 |
|
|
Doesn't comp REL specifically forbid these types of arrangements? I have no dog in this fight, just trying to broaden my understanding of the game in case I'm ever in a situation where an opp makes an offer.quote:4.3. Unsporting Conduct — Improperly Determining a Winner Match Loss
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 16:59
|
|